11 ms·

So. Much. B.S. There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. Money buys them stuff. Money lets the

So. Much. B.S. There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. Money buys them stuff. Money lets them have a nice roof over their head. Money lets their family not worry about a slum in the economy. Everything else is secondary. Here's a magic formula: MaxMoney(Min(work)) 402 "PAY_ME_MORE_MONEY" P.S. That's why it is called a job and not hobby or volunteering. P.P.S. Finance industry figured it out - which is why they are starting to raid the interwebz companies with a great success. In finance everything is solved by paying people more money. Sucky stack? $30K extra. Wear suit? $30k extra. Non-tech manager irritating you? Another $20k extra.

walshemj 9y ago
Absolutely employees are often shy about it but its 95% about the $/£
chillydawg 9y ago
There's enough suckers that will accept Uber or deliveroo vouchers over cash that it's worth trying those before more expensive options.
config_yml 9y ago
Money is certainly the baseline, but it's no motivation beyond that. Pay me $20k extra for dealing with that sucky manager? Sure, but 3 months later I'll still quit, especially if it's a pro-candidate market.
- mohaine 9y ago
  That is because you could get the 20k elsewhere or the manager wasn't worth 20k. What about 40k? 60k?
jcadam 9y ago
Money is important, but past a certain point (when you are able to live comfortably and are no longer feeling stressed about your personal/family finances), other factors come into play. Off the top of my head: 1) Respect. By that I mean professional respect - I want to feel that my contributions are valued and that people recognize my talents :) 2) Team. Working with dirtbags is miserable no matter how much you get paid. Sure, I'd do it if you threw enough money at me, but all else being equal, I'd like to work on a team full of smart, pleasant people. 3) Growth. Learning opportunities (conferences, training, etc.), promotions, stimulating projects, etc. 4) Time. As in my time. Overtime is kept to a minimum and really only happens when there is a true emergency. This kind of ties in with #1. To an extent you can substitute cash for any or all of these. However, if your working environment and/or culture is toxic, you're going to have trouble with retention no matter what else you do.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  A lot of these are independent from salary, however, and usually uncorrelated. I pretty have all of these at my current job, certainly the best I've ever had at any job (and I'd throw in a #5: Perks). And my current job, at a Big 4, also happens to pay by far the most of any job I've ever had too. I would certainly never sacrifice any of these for a minor bump in pay, but oftentimes you don't have to sacrifice any of them even for a major bump in pay.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Most people have this idea that either you get paid less and have a good job environment or you are highly paid in a bad environment. From my experience it's the opposite. Companies that pay well also have a good environment.
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      Here to second that notion. So far in my career every move I've done has been for a salary bump and quality of life improvement.
    - octasimo 9y ago
      Same for me!
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      Actually, I guess I do have to agree with that.
  - KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
    Actually, oftentimes they are correlated. Your pay is often low when you work on a shitty overstressed team on a dead-end project, and vice versa.
- lhnz 9y ago
  This is true, but can I just pay devil's advocate here. What if you're exceptionally stoic and enjoy learning things in your spare time? If you're emotionally stable enough and a hard worker outside of your career, you might want to just grow yourself a nest egg (pension, housing, shares, etc.) or make as much money as possible to provide for your children/wife/hedonism. Also, it's a good thing to learn how to placate toxic personalities and to be low maintenance. Not saying that it's easy, but I wanted to say this because I think people assume too readily that their own personal comfort is the most important thing when they take a job. Personally, as my emotional health has gotten better and I've made deeper connections with people, I've prioritised very different things than my younger self.
dmos62 9y ago
Other people look at work as a meaningful part of one's life and take care how to spend it. Some people, once they have basic security, financial or other, look for a fulfilling role in society. That is admirable and sustainable. Your described worldview is characteristic of greed, egoism and shorttermism and generally wasted potential (or a highly hostile environment).
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  People who don't care about money should make sure to work for companies that also don't only care about money. Most companies talk as if they have higher values but in reality they are only about money. I always find it condescending to tell people who aren't independently wealthy that money is not that important while at the same time the owners of a company try to squeeze out every bit of profit.
sethammons 9y ago
I've turned down greater pay for better working conditions. Money is important, but after a given level and within given margins, other concerns start taking priority.
- virgilp 9y ago
  While undoubtedly true, I'm speculating this can in fact be translated to money. You've turned down 50k$/y, say. Would you have turned down an extra 100k? 200k? 500k? I bet at some point you would've said "fuck it, yes I'll take the job despite conditions". But yes, eventually it's just cheaper to create the better working conditions than to pay everybody the extra money :)
  - ska 9y ago
    While true, this isn't particularly actionable if "fuck, yes I'll take the job despite the conditions" is economically unfeasible for most cases. Of course it's different for everyone but I would speculate that most people are also strongly motivated by other factors, once money is not too strong a constraint on what they can do.
  - kemiller2002 9y ago
    For some people you are correct. They will not turn down more money. After a certain point in your career you realize that money does not buy happiness, and it certainly does not buy you more time. As people get older and have families etc., people begin to realize that going home at a reasonable hour is much more important than extra money.
    - mohaine 9y ago
      If you are working massive hours you need a massive salary to make up for it or you are not getting well compensated. If you are working 60 hours a week you better be making 50% extra (or get 50% time off at a later data) or you are NOT making good money.
    - hood_syntax 9y ago
jasode 9y ago
There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. That's not true for everyone. I've taken $20k less salary to work on technologies that were more interesting. Money is just one dimension and one can be strategic about it. People can have other priorities besides money. Salary is important but it's not the only priority nor is it always the most important priority. Someone previously said that the best programmers are "coin-operated". Well, I guess I'm a substandard programmer because I'm definitely not coin-operated. I may prefer a $150k job that utilizes machine learning to analyze cancer cells instead of $175k to trick people into clicking ads. If job salary is the most important factor for a candidate, that's absolutely fine. This essay really isn't intended for candidates with that mindset.
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  All you’ve said though is that your personal marginal value of working on an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. What if the offer was 100k more? 250k more? I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. And that’s why the suggestion matters: nobody is going to change their job requirements to recruit more candidates...you are best off paying more money.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. It doesn't matter where it ends in the context of the reply to notyourday's assertion that only _one_ thing matters to non-mentally impaired people and that is _money_. >I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. Totally understandable and that's why I began my comment that priorities will be different for different people. That's ok. The world needs all types. My comment is informed by my experience with various tech jobs with wildly different salaries. I earned 2x the Google/Facebook salaries working for finance companies for 10 years. It was the worst 10 years of my life. The massive salary (massive for a programmer) let me buy nice toys, travel to expensive exotic places, and build up a nest egg but it was also soul-sucking misery. I look back at that period with regret. If I had to do it over, I should have taken a lesser paying $150k job with a company working on things that were interesting to me. However, that doesn't mean other programmers can't accept the miserable finance job with insanely high pay. If it pays big money, they'll be fine with it because they can compartmentalize the job and find meaning elsewhere. Some people can do that, but that's not me. Terrible work and uninspiring colleagues just spills over into personal life even when I'm not physically at the job site.
derekp7 9y ago
As an employee, I don't want to work for a place that is paying me more than they feel I'm worth. Because then they start to resent you. "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." Had this at a previous job (I was actually right at market rate, or slightly below, but a year prior the company was offering about 20% below market for this position). And every time I asked for clarification, or performed the job that was asked for (instead of what they "really wanted", since I wasn't a mind reader), I got that thrown in my face. Can't believe I stuck around for 3 years there.
- raducu 9y ago
  I heard this argument thrown by a manager at an annual review: "We're paying you what you are worth to us, not what the market pays", to which I promptly replied: "Following your logic, can I step in a Ferrari dealership and pay only 1000$ for a nice car, because that's what it's worth to me?"
  - KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
    You should take it as a compliment. Your manager is saying that your company cannot afford an engineer of your level.
    - raducu 9y ago
      My manager was a good guy, but a sub-mediocre performer and a bit spineless and he REALLY wanted to be a manager. Just before the annual review they had him trained how to handle it, and I'm pretty sure he was just regurgitating bullshit fed to him during his training. I later found out he asked a mother of two why is she so fixated on earning more money. Pretty lame gimmicks -- just say to your employees "Hey, your performance was ok but nothing special, I have this budget and for an ok performance the firm only gives you 3% salary increase this year".
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." That's just a bullying strategy for underpaid people. If you are really highly paid you are in the "in" group and they will make sure that you get what you need. Otherwise they would be wasting your expensive time.
torstenvl 9y ago
What is the dollar value for which you are willing to sell the prime of your life? If someone offered you $500,000 over the course of three years to give up your mid- or late-twenties, would you take it?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Mid 30s here, and I left tech to go into financial services because the total comp is so much higher as the parent comment alludes to after spending several years doing what I thought was fulfilling work (but it was not). If I can make X in tech, or 2X-3X in financial services dealing with more day to day pain, I’m taking more money every day of the week. I don’t care about the team, the mission, the working environment, just the total dollars.
  - ska 9y ago
    It's worth noting though, that this is how industries (e.g. finance) that look at it this way are filled with people (e.g. you) who look at it this way. That doesn't mean they've achieved some sort of global optimum. Confirmation bias is a significant effect here, and it works the same way for people who are doing what they consider to be "socially meaningful" work, or whatever, as for people who are "maximizing paychecks".
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Entirely possible. Luckily there are enough jobs to go around for both the “F you pay me” and the “Cash is not king” tech workers. There are waaaaaay more startups claiming to help the social good or that they’re changing the world versus the number that are just money-driven enterprises. My problem is the disingenuity and virtue signaling being used to underpay workers.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  That's not far off from what I did. I got total after tax compensation of around $4MM for 4 years of intense work. I consistently worked around 100 hours per week. So basically no life at all besides eat/sleep/shower/gym/work. No social life. No hobbies. No family time. No down time - for 4 years. It took a toll, but it was worth it in my opinion, as I'm financially independent now and I retired early, and I will never work another job that I'm not absolutely in love with. I would repeat the same thing again if given a choice, and a lot of poor bastards work more for less compensation, so I count myself fortunate to have had the opportunity. However, I think $500,000k for 3 years is probably not a great deal, and I probably wouldn't have accepted that bargain.
SonicSoul 9y ago
I've strongly considered taking a 65% compensation cut to work at a startup because it would be so much cooler to talk about, i'd learn a whole new stack, worked alongside super stars, and walk to work. The only reason i didn't take it was because said startup didn't follow up initial negotiation (mainly because even if i took such a big cut, i'd still be expensive for them). But i am certain i would have taken it and been much more happy. I know others who took such cuts to leave cushy "VP" positions and are very happy for doing so. *that said, there are very few companies that offer such conditions. 90% of places i ever interviewed at feel more like "work" and i'd want to maximize income for being there
kalimeh 9y ago
I am in management at a company that pays top quartile salaries and I concentrate on exactly the sort of selling that the FRC article talks about. Geat candidates get multiple offers, so I want my offer to be money plus valued intangibles, while my competitors just offer money. That way they have to outbid me to get the candidate; whereas I just have to _match_ them to win.
- notyourday 9y ago
  I guess your time is not valuable.
yosito 9y ago
I disagree with this. I'm motivated by money for two reasons; 1) I have bills to pay. 2) I want to be paid a fair rate, in line with other people with my level of skills and experience. So beyond fair pay that meets my needs, money is far less motivating for me than having a fulfilling, mission-focused career.
metafunctor 9y ago
I've turned down jobs that would have paid a LOT more than I made at the time, because I thought the hiring people were assholes (in the finance sector, no less). Based on your other comments here, I think they were probably much like you. There's more to it than money. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  There's no job that's so fun that I'd take it over working on things I want to work on (e.g. that same job), but only when I feel like it. Which is what you get when you are financially independent. Which you won't be if you work for peanuts.
  - metafunctor 9y ago
    I completely agree on financial independence. I have optimized for personal freedom in my career. That's why, for example, I haven't taken (many) consulting jobs, even though I would have made a lot of money in the short term. I ended up running a small software product business that I own 100%, make at least a steady $250k per year, can choose where I live, work maybe 20-30 hours per week, and can take a few weeks off whenever I like (this year I worked maybe 9 months out of 12).
swat535 9y ago
I am not sure if I fully agree with this. I think time and health are the most valuable assets one can have, followed immediately by money. You can have all the money in the world but without health, you will not enjoy it. You can have all the money in the world but without time, you will not enjoy it. Having more money is fantastic, if and only if the first two criterias are met in my opinion. I think it's a matter of calculating the risk/reward which greatly based on your personal situation, we can't lump everyone in the same basket. There is a balance to keep.

walshemj 9y ago

Absolutely employees are often shy about it but its 95% about the $/£

chillydawg 9y ago

There's enough suckers that will accept Uber or deliveroo vouchers over cash that it's worth trying those before more expensive options.

config_yml 9y ago

Money is certainly the baseline, but it's no motivation beyond that. Pay me $20k extra for dealing with that sucky manager? Sure, but 3 months later I'll still quit, especially if it's a pro-candidate market.

mohaine 9y ago
That is because you could get the 20k elsewhere or the manager wasn't worth 20k. What about 40k? 60k?

jcadam 9y ago

Money is important, but past a certain point (when you are able to live comfortably and are no longer feeling stressed about your personal/family finances), other factors come into play. Off the top of my head: 1) Respect. By that I mean professional respect - I want to feel that my contributions are valued and that people recognize my talents :) 2) Team. Working with dirtbags is miserable no matter how much you get paid. Sure, I'd do it if you threw enough money at me, but all else being equal, I'd like to work on a team full of smart, pleasant people. 3) Growth. Learning opportunities (conferences, training, etc.), promotions, stimulating projects, etc. 4) Time. As in my time. Overtime is kept to a minimum and really only happens when there is a true emergency. This kind of ties in with #1. To an extent you can substitute cash for any or all of these. However, if your working environment and/or culture is toxic, you're going to have trouble with retention no matter what else you do.

CydeWeys 9y ago
A lot of these are independent from salary, however, and usually uncorrelated. I pretty have all of these at my current job, certainly the best I've ever had at any job (and I'd throw in a #5: Perks). And my current job, at a Big 4, also happens to pay by far the most of any job I've ever had too. I would certainly never sacrifice any of these for a minor bump in pay, but oftentimes you don't have to sacrifice any of them even for a major bump in pay.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Most people have this idea that either you get paid less and have a good job environment or you are highly paid in a bad environment. From my experience it's the opposite. Companies that pay well also have a good environment.
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    Here to second that notion. So far in my career every move I've done has been for a salary bump and quality of life improvement.
  - octasimo 9y ago
    Same for me!
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    Actually, I guess I do have to agree with that.
- KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
  Actually, oftentimes they are correlated. Your pay is often low when you work on a shitty overstressed team on a dead-end project, and vice versa.
lhnz 9y ago
This is true, but can I just pay devil's advocate here. What if you're exceptionally stoic and enjoy learning things in your spare time? If you're emotionally stable enough and a hard worker outside of your career, you might want to just grow yourself a nest egg (pension, housing, shares, etc.) or make as much money as possible to provide for your children/wife/hedonism. Also, it's a good thing to learn how to placate toxic personalities and to be low maintenance. Not saying that it's easy, but I wanted to say this because I think people assume too readily that their own personal comfort is the most important thing when they take a job. Personally, as my emotional health has gotten better and I've made deeper connections with people, I've prioritised very different things than my younger self.

dmos62 9y ago

Other people look at work as a meaningful part of one's life and take care how to spend it. Some people, once they have basic security, financial or other, look for a fulfilling role in society. That is admirable and sustainable. Your described worldview is characteristic of greed, egoism and shorttermism and generally wasted potential (or a highly hostile environment).

maxxxxx 9y ago
People who don't care about money should make sure to work for companies that also don't only care about money. Most companies talk as if they have higher values but in reality they are only about money. I always find it condescending to tell people who aren't independently wealthy that money is not that important while at the same time the owners of a company try to squeeze out every bit of profit.

sethammons 9y ago

I've turned down greater pay for better working conditions. Money is important, but after a given level and within given margins, other concerns start taking priority.

virgilp 9y ago
While undoubtedly true, I'm speculating this can in fact be translated to money. You've turned down 50k$/y, say. Would you have turned down an extra 100k? 200k? 500k? I bet at some point you would've said "fuck it, yes I'll take the job despite conditions". But yes, eventually it's just cheaper to create the better working conditions than to pay everybody the extra money :)
- ska 9y ago
  While true, this isn't particularly actionable if "fuck, yes I'll take the job despite the conditions" is economically unfeasible for most cases. Of course it's different for everyone but I would speculate that most people are also strongly motivated by other factors, once money is not too strong a constraint on what they can do.
- kemiller2002 9y ago
  For some people you are correct. They will not turn down more money. After a certain point in your career you realize that money does not buy happiness, and it certainly does not buy you more time. As people get older and have families etc., people begin to realize that going home at a reasonable hour is much more important than extra money.
  - mohaine 9y ago
    If you are working massive hours you need a massive salary to make up for it or you are not getting well compensated. If you are working 60 hours a week you better be making 50% extra (or get 50% time off at a later data) or you are NOT making good money.
  - hood_syntax 9y ago

jasode 9y ago

There is only one thing that people who have not been dropped on a head interested in. It is called money. That's not true for everyone. I've taken $20k less salary to work on technologies that were more interesting. Money is just one dimension and one can be strategic about it. People can have other priorities besides money. Salary is important but it's not the only priority nor is it always the most important priority. Someone previously said that the best programmers are "coin-operated". Well, I guess I'm a substandard programmer because I'm definitely not coin-operated. I may prefer a $150k job that utilizes machine learning to analyze cancer cells instead of $175k to trick people into clicking ads. If job salary is the most important factor for a candidate, that's absolutely fine. This essay really isn't intended for candidates with that mindset.

saosebastiao 9y ago
All you’ve said though is that your personal marginal value of working on an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. What if the offer was 100k more? 250k more? I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. And that’s why the suggestion matters: nobody is going to change their job requirements to recruit more candidates...you are best off paying more money.
- jasode 9y ago
  >an interesting problem is worth more than 25k, but you haven’t stated where that ends. It doesn't matter where it ends in the context of the reply to notyourday's assertion that only _one_ thing matters to non-mentally impaired people and that is _money_. >I hated working for Amazon more than any other job. But I’d do it again for double my previous salary. Totally understandable and that's why I began my comment that priorities will be different for different people. That's ok. The world needs all types. My comment is informed by my experience with various tech jobs with wildly different salaries. I earned 2x the Google/Facebook salaries working for finance companies for 10 years. It was the worst 10 years of my life. The massive salary (massive for a programmer) let me buy nice toys, travel to expensive exotic places, and build up a nest egg but it was also soul-sucking misery. I look back at that period with regret. If I had to do it over, I should have taken a lesser paying $150k job with a company working on things that were interesting to me. However, that doesn't mean other programmers can't accept the miserable finance job with insanely high pay. If it pays big money, they'll be fine with it because they can compartmentalize the job and find meaning elsewhere. Some people can do that, but that's not me. Terrible work and uninspiring colleagues just spills over into personal life even when I'm not physically at the job site.

derekp7 9y ago

As an employee, I don't want to work for a place that is paying me more than they feel I'm worth. Because then they start to resent you. "What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." Had this at a previous job (I was actually right at market rate, or slightly below, but a year prior the company was offering about 20% below market for this position). And every time I asked for clarification, or performed the job that was asked for (instead of what they "really wanted", since I wasn't a mind reader), I got that thrown in my face. Can't believe I stuck around for 3 years there.

raducu 9y ago
I heard this argument thrown by a manager at an annual review: "We're paying you what you are worth to us, not what the market pays", to which I promptly replied: "Following your logic, can I step in a Ferrari dealership and pay only 1000$ for a nice car, because that's what it's worth to me?"
- KKKKkkkk1 9y ago
  You should take it as a compliment. Your manager is saying that your company cannot afford an engineer of your level.
  - raducu 9y ago
    My manager was a good guy, but a sub-mediocre performer and a bit spineless and he REALLY wanted to be a manager. Just before the annual review they had him trained how to handle it, and I'm pretty sure he was just regurgitating bullshit fed to him during his training. I later found out he asked a mother of two why is she so fixated on earning more money. Pretty lame gimmicks -- just say to your employees "Hey, your performance was ok but nothing special, I have this budget and for an ok performance the firm only gives you 3% salary increase this year".
maxxxxx 9y ago
"What do you mean you can't read my mind? That's what I'm paying you [large sum] for." That's just a bullying strategy for underpaid people. If you are really highly paid you are in the "in" group and they will make sure that you get what you need. Otherwise they would be wasting your expensive time.

torstenvl 9y ago

What is the dollar value for which you are willing to sell the prime of your life? If someone offered you $500,000 over the course of three years to give up your mid- or late-twenties, would you take it?

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Mid 30s here, and I left tech to go into financial services because the total comp is so much higher as the parent comment alludes to after spending several years doing what I thought was fulfilling work (but it was not). If I can make X in tech, or 2X-3X in financial services dealing with more day to day pain, I’m taking more money every day of the week. I don’t care about the team, the mission, the working environment, just the total dollars.
- ska 9y ago
  It's worth noting though, that this is how industries (e.g. finance) that look at it this way are filled with people (e.g. you) who look at it this way. That doesn't mean they've achieved some sort of global optimum. Confirmation bias is a significant effect here, and it works the same way for people who are doing what they consider to be "socially meaningful" work, or whatever, as for people who are "maximizing paychecks".
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Entirely possible. Luckily there are enough jobs to go around for both the “F you pay me” and the “Cash is not king” tech workers. There are waaaaaay more startups claiming to help the social good or that they’re changing the world versus the number that are just money-driven enterprises. My problem is the disingenuity and virtue signaling being used to underpay workers.
Simon_says 9y ago
That's not far off from what I did. I got total after tax compensation of around $4MM for 4 years of intense work. I consistently worked around 100 hours per week. So basically no life at all besides eat/sleep/shower/gym/work. No social life. No hobbies. No family time. No down time - for 4 years. It took a toll, but it was worth it in my opinion, as I'm financially independent now and I retired early, and I will never work another job that I'm not absolutely in love with. I would repeat the same thing again if given a choice, and a lot of poor bastards work more for less compensation, so I count myself fortunate to have had the opportunity. However, I think $500,000k for 3 years is probably not a great deal, and I probably wouldn't have accepted that bargain.

SonicSoul 9y ago

I've strongly considered taking a 65% compensation cut to work at a startup because it would be so much cooler to talk about, i'd learn a whole new stack, worked alongside super stars, and walk to work. The only reason i didn't take it was because said startup didn't follow up initial negotiation (mainly because even if i took such a big cut, i'd still be expensive for them). But i am certain i would have taken it and been much more happy. I know others who took such cuts to leave cushy "VP" positions and are very happy for doing so. *that said, there are very few companies that offer such conditions. 90% of places i ever interviewed at feel more like "work" and i'd want to maximize income for being there

kalimeh 9y ago

I am in management at a company that pays top quartile salaries and I concentrate on exactly the sort of selling that the FRC article talks about. Geat candidates get multiple offers, so I want my offer to be money plus valued intangibles, while my competitors just offer money. That way they have to outbid me to get the candidate; whereas I just have to _match_ them to win.

notyourday 9y ago
I guess your time is not valuable.

yosito 9y ago

I disagree with this. I'm motivated by money for two reasons; 1) I have bills to pay. 2) I want to be paid a fair rate, in line with other people with my level of skills and experience. So beyond fair pay that meets my needs, money is far less motivating for me than having a fulfilling, mission-focused career.

metafunctor 9y ago

I've turned down jobs that would have paid a LOT more than I made at the time, because I thought the hiring people were assholes (in the finance sector, no less). Based on your other comments here, I think they were probably much like you. There's more to it than money. Maybe some day you'll figure it out.

literallycancer 9y ago
There's no job that's so fun that I'd take it over working on things I want to work on (e.g. that same job), but only when I feel like it. Which is what you get when you are financially independent. Which you won't be if you work for peanuts.
- metafunctor 9y ago
  I completely agree on financial independence. I have optimized for personal freedom in my career. That's why, for example, I haven't taken (many) consulting jobs, even though I would have made a lot of money in the short term. I ended up running a small software product business that I own 100%, make at least a steady $250k per year, can choose where I live, work maybe 20-30 hours per week, and can take a few weeks off whenever I like (this year I worked maybe 9 months out of 12).

swat535 9y ago

I am not sure if I fully agree with this. I think time and health are the most valuable assets one can have, followed immediately by money. You can have all the money in the world but without health, you will not enjoy it. You can have all the money in the world but without time, you will not enjoy it. Having more money is fantastic, if and only if the first two criterias are met in my opinion. I think it's a matter of calculating the risk/reward which greatly based on your personal situation, we can't lump everyone in the same basket. There is a balance to keep.